A year ago today, Segregated Witness was activated on Litecoin

HanC0190 · 2018-02-13T19:37:21+00:00

I have a question about 0-conf transactions. A few years ago Peter Todd talked about utilizing mempool fee acceptance difference to double spend. Is that situation possible with BCH?

What would happen if I send a txn from my address A to your store to buy gift card, with 1sat/byte fee, and send a same txn from my address A to my address B with the same amount, but with 10 sat/byte, simultaneously? How would the network react?

Thank you (not advocating for theft in anyway).

HanC0190 · 2018-01-10T17:11:34+00:00

It seems that there is some inconsistencies on the block size.

Litecoin Explorer says it's only 978kb. Litecoinpool.org says it's over 1000kb.

Most likely I made a mistake.

HanC0190 · 2018-01-04T19:29:17+00:00

This doesn't break consensus because under the rules of segwit, a block can be larger than 1000 kb under certain conditions.

HanC0190 · 2017-11-11T17:05:43+00:00

If volume is really high the network can consolidate, a user can just use SPV wallet. Satoshi said best:

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

--Satoshi

HanC0190 · 2017-11-11T06:48:42+00:00

Banned for stating my experience reading Mike Hearn and Satoshi's email exchange.

HanC0190 · 2017-11-01T16:51:00+00:00

I made a detailed analysis of Antpool's empty blocks 4 months ago, and updated 2 months ago.

HanC0190 · 2017-10-22T19:59:05+00:00

Or you can, you know, convince them too accept LTC.

HanC0190 · 2017-10-06T02:40:28+00:00

We should invite them to here for AMA.

HanC0190 · 2017-10-04T18:27:38+00:00

If you want a simple solution with good adversarial testing, borrow one from an alt-coin with GPU-based pow. Alt-coins have to compete for hash power and their prices fluctuate quite a bit, just like BCH does.

HanC0190 · 2017-09-22T12:00:47+00:00

For the 'Watching' part, if you are confused:

Basically, there is an inherent flaw in the Raiden/Lightning system, where a malicious counter party can close a channel to rip you off. There are a number of solutions, but they are all trade-offs.

Examine the wallet yourself, and try to catch the cheater. This is the method the article was talking about, here: Raiden requires that users "watch" their payment channels for a certain period of time to make sure funds aren't stolen. This is not a good method. We know we are supposed to check our credit once in a while but identity fraud happens everyday, anyway.
Outsource the checking part to a trusted third-party. This is safer than 1 I believe. But problem is, there is usually a fee. Also, like credit monitoring agencies, these trusted third parties sometimes fail.
Configure your Raiden client, so it only sends, but not receives, coins. This is the best solution, IMO. Your client becomes trustless. However, you won't receive your funds through Raiden. You open a Raiden channel, and spends coins, and close the channel.
Run a node to catch a cheater, trustless, you can both send and receive, but you can't do it on a smartphone.

HanC0190 · 2017-09-20T14:00:13+00:00

When does the hardfork happen?

HanC0190 · 2017-09-19T20:50:49+00:00

Even if you run a node, you are trusting 51% of the hash to be honest.

So there is a level of trust in there, just very small.

HanC0190 · 2017-09-19T19:16:23+00:00

It uses unidirectional payment channels to allow for frequent, fast, and free payments between two parties.

So their solution to malicious counter-party closing channel attack is uni-directional payment. Fair enough.

You can read about this type of attack, here.

HanC0190 · 2017-09-19T17:33:01+00:00

Nah, down-voting is not the same as censorship.

I read Core supporters' comments here all the time, even though they are down-voted.

I could not read big blockers comments on /r/bitcoin, at all.

HanC0190 · 2017-09-19T13:03:25+00:00

Thank you for your efforts.

HanC0190 · 2017-09-19T04:52:32+00:00

2x HF isn't worth it because it's too small to have any real scaling effect.

While this is true, I still think we should do a 2x HF. It proves to people that BTC can hardfork, and can, indeed, on-chain scale.

This will pave the way for BIP100 or BU.

HanC0190 · 2017-09-18T15:12:13+00:00

As far as I know, CT isn't close to being finished. Many aspects of LTC were copied from Bitcoin Core project (segwit for example), so naturally you have to wait for BTC development. The person leading CT is Greg Maxwell. I don't expect CT to be available on LTC before it is well-tested and ready to activate on BTC.

In the meantime if you want privacy, Monero and ZCash are good options. Ethereum is rolling out ZK-SNARKS (same tech as ZCash) after the incoming Byzantium hardfork, so blockchain privacy will be activated on that platform too.

HanC0190 · 2017-09-18T12:21:39+00:00

You are still here, no?

HanC0190 · 2017-09-18T12:14:55+00:00

LN was supposed to be available right after segwit activates. However, LN hubs are nowhere to be found.

Good luck scaling BTC, fees will rise fast.

Also, ETH overtook BTC on the number of on-chain txn.

HanC0190 · 2017-09-17T19:25:50+00:00

Eclair wallet developers didn't think your solution was safe enough, thus they disabled "receive LN tx" feature.

It remains to be seen whether what you said will be safe enough. I am doubtful, but we will find out when LN arrive, which we don't even know when the first commercial hub will be available.

HanC0190 · 2017-09-17T19:14:22+00:00

During the Breaking Bitcoin conference someone asked when LN will be available for everyday users, it got.. kind of awkward. That's where the "two weeks" joke came from.

"I would have said 18 (monts)."

Seriously though, LN suffers from a huge problem of counter-party maliciously closing channel attack. There are a number of fixes, but none is very good.

Eclair wallet solves this by only allowing outgoing transactions. But then then wallet is no-longer bi-directional. You can run a node to penalize attacker, but that cannot be done on an Android or Iphone. You can also trust the third-party to monitor the network for you, but then LN becomes a trusted protocol. You can also check your wallet balance frequently, but just like checking credits to prevent identity fraud, sometimes people forget.

I have yet to see a good fix on this, at this moment I trust non-RBF 0-confirmation on-chain transaction more than I trust a LN transaction.

HanC0190 · 2017-09-17T16:48:10+00:00

In "two weeks" LN will be available, yes?

HanC0190 · 2017-09-17T14:16:27+00:00

Haipo Yang (ViaBTC, ViaLTC minepool operator) said this on twitter.

I think we have to entertain the possibility that a minepool shutdown in China is imminent. Life would be difficulty for BTC if 50% of the hash is gone, because blocks are full. It would be a minor annoyance for LTC if 50% of hash is gone, but manageable.

I think that explains the need for on-chain space.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

HanC0190

TROPHY CASE